Editorial about firearms regulation expressed writer’s liberal bias

To The Daily: Regarding The Daily’s June 27 editorial, “Activist court bans regulation of arms,” the title alone exposes the editor’s bias. The court did not ban anything; the people who ratified the Second Amendment are responsible for banning the regulation of arms. Nor was the court’s decision in any way activist. To overturn the clear intent of both the authors who drafted, and the voters who approved the Second Amendment, as the dissenting judges sought to do is the activist position.

The editorial whined that the court ignored the word “regulated.” Perhaps the editor is unaware that, in 1791, the term did not mean what it does today, “strangled to death with petty, bureaucratic rules,” but instead indicated “well trained” or “skilled.”

The editorial also complained that “Justice Scalia’s interpretive philosophy does not allow judges to consider anything that has occurred since the states ratified the Constitution.” Perhaps the editor is unaware that the judicial branch was not granted the authority to change laws. Instead, that responsibility was delegated only to the legislative branch.

The founders did recognize that changes in our Constitution might be needed, and the process they gave us for doing so is through constitutional amendment, not through judicial reinterpretation. The founders would be appalled to learn the charter they designed as a “chain to bind down government officials from mischief” has been turned into a “living, breathing document” that liberal judges shape and mold to fit their socialist agenda.

J. Kennon Ledbetter
Trinity